If the climate continues to worsen, outdoor workers will need twice as many breaksbe quickly and efficiently replaced by their employers whenever they collapse in their tracks by 2050 due to heat stress say scientists, completely ignoring the fact we'll have giant robots to do all our work for us by then

That's why most people are against the climate change models, because they all come to a head 50 years from now... They don't give 2 shiats about their children or grand children's lives, they only care about what the weather is doing today...

"It's cold today, so there's no reason to believe i should have to change anything i'm doing now"

"However, if you continue to be destructive, there will be significant complications in 2050"

"2050?! Who the fark cares about 2050?! I'll be long dead by then, so explain to me again why I have to change my habits now?"

Here's what I don't get. I'm NOT questioning global warming. But, every day we read an article about some place that's going to be hotter, miserable, etc. Yet, there MUST be at least ONE place in the world that will become better off if it averages a few degrees warmer. Where is that place?

Subby: If the climate continues to worsen, outdoor workers will need twice as many breaks by 2050 due to heat stress say scientists, completely ignoring the fact we'll have giant robots to do all our work for usthe global ponzi scheme economy will have collapsed and we'll be in anarchy by then

Alternatively, scaremongers pick numbers far enough in the future that they'll never be called on their inaccurate predictions. Or some other answer.

that would be fine if it was a handful of people you could consider "scaremongers", but considering it's 90%+ scientists, including NASA... I don't consider NASA a scaremonger...

I think people look for justification in not making changes in their lives: "It's all scare tactics" "Here's one report suggesting the opposite of the 10,000 other reports about it, so it's disputed!" "You can't believe everything you read, so it can't be true!"

All the old arguments are the same, and they all boil down to "I don't WANT to make changes in my life because changing my bad habits is too hard!"

BiffDangler:Yet, there MUST be at least ONE place in the world that will become better off if it averages a few degrees warmer. Where is that place?

Lots of places. Just as one small example, Indiana has been growing grapes for wine since the French settled the area, but it's a bit on the cold side. As the temperatures increase, more traditional growing areas are moving into the "just a bit too hot" range, and Indiana is getting consistently better wines.

But having rising sea levels creating huge numbers of emigrants, a more unstable climate, and all the other negative effects far outweigh the benefits.

New Orleans - Stunning new data not yet publicly released shows Louisiana losing its battle with rising seas much more quickly than even the most pessimistic studies have predicted to date.

While state officials continue to argue over restoration projects to save the state's sinking, crumbling coast, top researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have concluded that Louisiana is in line for the highest rate of sea-level rise "on the planet."

Indeed, the water is rising so fast that some coastal restoration projects could be obsolete before they are completed, the officials said.

I've always heard LA would be swept out to sea but I thought they meant So Cal.

Every year we have at least one farm worker die from the heat in my area. Every year there's a big brouhaha about how there are laws already in place requiring sanitation facilities, frequent breaks in shaded areas, easy access to potable water and other measures to prevent heat related death and every year we are reminded that the owners of some of these farms ignore the law. There is not enough personnel to go around to police all of the large growers in this area, so they know the chances they get caught ignoring the law will be very slim. I really don't see employers in 2050, especially in high heat environments (which are usually low paying), don't behaving any differently regarding the law and worker safety than some in the agriculture industry in my area already behave.

CeroX:I think people look for justification in not making changes in their lives: "It's all scare tactics" "Here's one report suggesting the opposite of the 10,000 other reports about it, so it's disputed!" "You can't believe everything you read, so it can't be true!"

You have no idea what my level of research into this issue is, and obviously haven't done any real research yourself. That's ok, though, I'm not trying to promote an agenda. Believe whatever you want. History will repeat itself just fine without either of us helping it along.

Smirky the Wonder Chimp:If the climate continues to worsen, outdoor workers will need twice as many breaks be quickly and efficiently replaced by their employers whenever they collapse in their tracks by 2050 due to heat stress say scientists, completely ignoring the fact we'll have giant robots to do all our work for us by then

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich:BiffDangler: Yet, there MUST be at least ONE place in the world that will become better off if it averages a few degrees warmer. Where is that place?

Lots of places. Just as one small example, Indiana has been growing grapes for wine since the French settled the area, but it's a bit on the cold side. As the temperatures increase, more traditional growing areas are moving into the "just a bit too hot" range, and Indiana is getting consistently better wines.

But having rising sea levels creating huge numbers of emigrants, a more unstable climate, and all the other negative effects far outweigh the benefits.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Now, isnt there SOME place in the world that overall will see a benefit? Think about it this way: the climate has been changing for tens of thousands of years. It can't be that change is always bad, or else one would have to say that each incremental change makes the world as a whole worse off, which would imply that, say, 100,000 years ago the earth must have been a virtual paradise everywhere.

That's why most people are against the climate change models, because they all come to a head 50 years from now... They don't give 2 shiats about their children or grand children's lives, they only care about what the weather is doing today...

"It's cold today, so there's no reason to believe i should have to change anything i'm doing now"

"However, if you continue to be destructive, there will be significant complications in 2050"

"2050?! Who the fark cares about 2050?! I'll be long dead by then, so explain to me again why I have to change my habits now?"

Only because the world has been coming to an end in 50 years for the last 500 years.

BiffDangler:Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Now, isnt there SOME place in the world that overall will see a benefit? Think about it this way: the climate has been changing for tens of thousands of years. It can't be that change is always bad, or else one would have to say that each incremental change makes the world as a whole worse off, which would imply that, say, 100,000 years ago the earth must have been a virtual paradise everywhere.

You could say that change will create a new equilibrium. Some species will benefit, others will not. Likewise, some humans will and others won't. It's just that nowadays we've arranged humans in such large groups (i.e. countries) and occupy just about every inhabitable spot on earth, that every group will experience some radical change. We're not prepared for great changes.

That's why most people are against the climate change models, because they all come to a head 50 years from now... They don't give 2 shiats about their children or grand children's lives, they only care about what the weather is doing today...

"It's cold today, so there's no reason to believe i should have to change anything i'm doing now"

"However, if you continue to be destructive, there will be significant complications in 2050"

"2050?! Who the fark cares about 2050?! I'll be long dead by then, so explain to me again why I have to change my habits now?"

If only liberals would care so much about 50 years from now when it comes to the economy. You sure have no trouble making it so 50 years from now, our debt will be a number most people cannot even type.

Ilmarinen:You could say that change will create a new equilibrium. Some species will benefit, others will not. Likewise, some humans will and others won't. It's just that nowadays we've arranged humans in such large groups (i.e. countries) and occupy just about every inhabitable spot on earth, that every group will experience some radical change. We're not prepared for great changes

It isn't just temperature ... if it was then Canada and Russia would be loving it.

The fact is that even a 1° increase in the atmosphere and/or oceans represents a massive amount energy added to the system. This energy comes out as unpredictable weather and more extreme storms more often.

Deep Contact:According to Al Gore. The only thing that will fix this is to give more money to Al Gore.

Ahhh ... deniers and their secret love affair with Al Gore.

Nobody on the planet cares about or ever talks about Al Gore except the American anti-science movement. You guys have a collective hard-on the size of Montana for him. What does your shrink say about this infatuation?